So I think Child Benefit should be means tested...

ceret

Perhaps I'm a bit on my own here, but in the wake of talk of cuts, I think child benefit (and most other b enefits) *should* be means tested. I, for one, think it's unfair that a family of €100k+ should get child benefit. They don't need it.

Riskymove

ceret wrote: »

Perhaps I'm a bit on my own here, but in the wake of talk of cuts, I think child benefit (and most other b enefits) *should* be means tested. I, for one, think it's unfair that a family of €100k+ should get child benefit. They don't need it.

Though I would generally agree, McCarthy seems to favor reducing it as a way of avoiding the costs that means testing would incur

Darragh29

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???

You go past any school in the morning and you'll see yummy mummies with 09 Range Rovers and X5's dropping off their little darlings to school. Who is paying for it??? If you can afford a 100K hummer to bring your little darlings to school, then you can well afford to pay for their upbringing without needing the state to help you with it...

It was mentioned on the radio the other day that a couple with 3 kids can pay the mortgage on their investment property in Spain with the Childrens Allowance!

The idea that a couple on 100K plus can get child benefit automatically is repugant to every iota of common sense and basic cop-on...

bladespin

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???

I think you should read the constitution, that's part of what our country is about.

I fully agree with means testing child benefit though (or some form of means testing) as I agree, it's silly to think a couple on €100k plus can have a substantial second income from their children alone.

geuro

just chipping in to agree that yes, i think it should be means tested, as should medical cards for OAPs etc. Seems like common sense to me when we are so skint...

Darragh29

bladespin wrote: »

I think you should read the constitution, that's part of what our country is about.

I fully agree with means testing child benefit though (or some form of means testing) as I agree, it's silly to think a couple on €100k plus can have a substantial second income from their children alone.

Yes we should cherish the children of the state, but in 2009, that now means on many occasions that the money the state pays to parents for child benefit is funding mammy and daddys investment property in Alacante... Not on I say, get rid of child benefit across the board, if you want to have kids, then be prepared to pay for them yourself! If you feel that you need child benefit, then you should have to apply for it and be means tested for it...

The amount of automatic handouts in this country is nothing less than scary...

ceret

Darragh29 wrote: »

It was mentioned on the radio the other day that a couple with 3 kids can pay the mortgage on their investment property in Spain with the Childrens Allowance!

Madness! Got a link?

Darragh29

ceret wrote: »

Madness! Got a link?

You don't need one, do the maths!

Riskymove

ceret wrote: »

Madness! Got a link?

why do you need a link?

Child benefit for 2 kids is €332 a month, 3 kids is €535

if you are already comfortable, that's a nice bonus

upthedub

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???

You go past any school in the morning and you'll see yummy mummies with 09 Range Rovers and X5's dropping off their little darlings to school. Who is paying for it??? If you can afford a 100K hummer to bring your little darlings to school, then you can well afford to pay for their upbringing without needing the state to help you with it...

It was mentioned on the radio the other day that a couple with 3 kids can pay the mortgage on their investment property in Spain with the Childrens Allowance!

The idea that a couple on 100K plus can get child benefit automatically is repugant to every iota of common sense and basic cop-on...

What school do you see them type of cars 09 range rovers and X5s???:rolleyes:

jprender

Why is the figure of 100k being mentioned as a threshold ?

Why not 40K ?

Darragh29

upthedub wrote: »

What school do you see them type of cars 09 range rovers and X5s???:rolleyes:

I drove past a primary school in Lucan not that long ago and was amazed by the number of high value cars dropping kids off at school. No shortage of new Range Rovers (costing over 100K), 08/09 Mercs & BM's... If you can afford one of these, you don't need child benefit as far as I'm concerned. The government should CUT this payment and see how many people are driving around in state of the art cars in twelve months time, that they in all reality probably can't afford, only the government are throwing money at them for bringing up children.

Ddad

I'm in receipt of child benefits for three children. Alas I don't own an investment property in Alicante or anywhere else.

i don't think I should be eligible for this benefit as our combined income is good. Thats in my case.

However, I'll bet Daragh doesn't have a clue about the cost of raising children and rearing them well.

It costs a bomb. If you want someone around to pay your pension and provide services when your older you'll want people to have children. Without some supports many people cannot afford to have children.

"I don't see why i should pay for prisons I never use them"???????:rolleyes:

upthedub

Darragh29 wrote: »

I drove past a primary school in Lucan not that long ago and was amazed by the number of high value cars dropping kids off at school. No shortage of new Range Rovers (costing over 100K), 08/09 Mercs & BM's... If you can afford one of these, you don't need child benefit as far as I'm concerned. The government should CUT this payment and see how many people are driving around in state of the art cars in twelve months time, that they in all reality probably can't afford, only the government are throwing money at them for bringing up children.

Cut it????Surely not..:eek:

What about the familys that really depend on it???

You cannot say it should be cut because rich mammys or daddys in lucan are ripping us off !

Darragh29

Ddad wrote: »

I'm in receipt of child benefits for three children. Alas I don't own an investment property in Alicante or anywhere else.

i don't think I should be eligible for this benefit as our combined income is good. Thats in my case.

However, I'll bet Daragh doesn't have a clue about the cost of raising children and rearing them well.

It costs a bomb. If you want someone around to pay your pension and provide services when your older you'll want people to have children. Without some supports many people cannot afford to have children.

"I don't see why i should pay for prisons I never use them"???????:rolleyes:

Your dead right, bringing up kids is an expensive business, hence why I decided not to have any yet! When I am ready to do so financially and I can do it without being a burden on the state and other people/taxpayers financially, I might do so. But a lot of the people that I can see who are getting child benefit, are living outside their means... They are driving 07/08/09 top end cars bought for stupid money and if you sit down beside them at a BBQ or when your out for a pint, they will tell you that they are broke, they are feeling the pinch, they can't cope, they hate the government, etc. I feel like saying, "maybe if you got rid of that 08 Range Rover that is costing you 600 Euro a month, things might not be looking so bad!"...

Darragh29

upthedub wrote: »

Cut it????Surely not..:eek:

What about the familys that really depend on it???

You cannot say it should be cut because rich mammys or daddys in lucan are ripping us off !

It should be pulled in the morning and if you need it, it should be given on a "per application" basis. I can't understand the difficulty here, Revenue hold records on income, they can work out if you need it or not, if you are earning over 100K, then I don't see why you need child benefit, you've plenty of money to live on. End of problem I think....

Orlaithc9

I think Ddad said it better than I actually could.

But just to add....i am a 25 year old female, have a six month old baby, have my own car,own my own house, and myself and my partner (31) both work 47 hours a week.
We dont live beyond our means and budget our spendingsvery carefully every week. We would not even think about having another baby untill we were completely and utterly sure we could afford number 2.
It does make me upset to watch young mummies walk around with new prams, fashionable clothes etc and not work. I dont think people should get money just for having children, maybe if things were different we wouldnt have so many young teens getting pregnant- just a thought.

eamonnm79

I think the fairest way to do it is to tell people that it will be cut 100% for everyone but people can apply for a means tested Childrens allowance.
Once all the applications are finalised the childrens allowance shall be cut for everyone else.
Now I know what you are thinking, 'this will take forever!'

But thats where the governments new employees come in.
How about we get 200 staff from Anglo to do it?

I would say they could get throgh the 500 thousand applications in about 5-6 months.

Colin maCarthys method of reducing for all is about as equitable as most of his other suggestions.
1.8 billion of the 5.3 billion cuts are in Social welfare.
People on social welfare should take on 1/3 of the cuts for the whole economy?
We Should have just got Milton Friedmans Ghost to do it up it would have
been more equitable
What about a 5% levy on familys earning over 100k or individuals earning 65k?

Darragh29

Ddad wrote: »

I'm in receipt of child benefits for three children. Alas I don't own an investment property in Alicante or anywhere else.

i don't think I should be eligible for this benefit as our combined income is good. Thats in my case.

However, I'll bet Daragh doesn't have a clue about the cost of raising children and rearing them well.

It costs a bomb. If you want someone around to pay your pension and provide services when your older you'll want people to have children. Without some supports many people cannot afford to have children.

"I don't see why i should pay for prisons I never use them"???????:rolleyes:

Well if you don't consider that you need it, why do you continue to go down to the Post Office every week and claim it???

You could easily hand them back the book and ask them to close the account and take you off the system because you don't actually need state subvention to rear your children??

I'm not having a go at you, but its either we get our heads around this concept of "do you really need state assistance?", or else we run out of cash as a country fairly imminently!

jprender

eamonnm79 wrote: »

What about a 5% levy on familys earning over 100k or individuals earning 65k?

How about a 5% levy on everyone ?

harsea8

Although I agree with the OP's sentiment, I think means-testing is likely to be shelved cos of the associated costs. Also, where do you set the limit?...for example, say we follow the above mentioned idea of cutting it for any family earning over €100K....would it then be fair that a family with a combined salary of €80K with one child gets state support for raising their child, but a family with a combined salary of €101K with 4 children gets diddly-squat?

My proposal would be to continue to give the CB in the standard way (ie, based on number of children), but to tax the full amount at a person's highest tax band. Thus those not paying tax and the unemployed get the full whack, those only paying 20% tax get ~80% of the normal amount and those who pay income tax on the higher tax band, only get ~60% of it. If the government grew a pair and introduced an even higher tax band (say 60% for earnings over €200K), then anyone earning over this amount would only get ~40% of the current amount. Although by no means ideal, it would at least be fairer than the current system and relatively cheap to implement.

Ddad

Like I said, I don't believe I should receive it.

If you drop it completely overnight you end up in the position where tens of thousands of families end up in terrible trouble.

trying to claim any benefits in this country at the moment is difficult...very difficult.

I will however give you an example of how circumstances change.A friend of mine has three children all born into a stable well off family. His wife is now ill, he can only afford to do part time lowly paid work so the family is on the breadline. All that happened in three years.

Circumstances change, but you cannot hand the children back.

I think it's fair to declare what happens to the childrens allowance in our house. Three credit union accounts to pay for the childrens education, it looks like we'll need it.

Darragh29

Ddad wrote: »

Like I said, I don't believe I should receive it.

If you drop it completely overnight you end up in the position where tens of thousands of families end up in terrible trouble.

trying to claim any benefits in this country at the moment is difficult...very difficult.

I will however give you an example of how circumstances change.A friend of mine has three children all born into a stable well off family. His wife is now ill, he can only afford to do part time lowly paid work so the family is on the breadline. All that happened in three years.

Circumstances change, but you cannot hand the children back.

I think it's fair to declare what happens to the childrens allowance in our house. Three credit union accounts to pay for the childrens education, it looks like we'll need it.

I take your point on the not dropping it in its entirety overnight. But we should start somewhere. People earning over 100K don't need child support, and if they consider that they do, then I reckon they are living beyond their means. So it should be cut for those people. The government could start by writing to all people who Revenue records show are earning over 100K and asking them to clarify their income within 28 days. If they cannot prove that they are earning below the 100K threshold within the 28 day period, then CB should be withdrawn... That would be a start...

Ddad

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well if you don't consider that you need it, why do you continue to go down to the Post Office every week and claim it???

You could easily hand them back the book and ask them to close the account and take you off the system because you don't actually need state subvention to rear your children??

I'm not having a go at you, but its either we get our heads around this concept of "do you really need state assistance?", or else we run out of cash as a country fairly imminently!

Fair point, I get it automatically into my bank account, as do most people. I don't receive any other benefit from the state despite paying enormous sums in income tax and indirect taxation. I've been honest on my tax returns and received rebates.

I'm willing to give it up but I'm not an idiot. the last time I checked a large number of politicians were still getting pensions while receiving salaries and expenses. I'm still on the moral high ground.

Darragh29

Ddad wrote: »

Fair point, I get it automatically into my bank account, as do most people. I don't receive any other benefit from the state despite paying enormous sums in income tax and indirect taxation. I've been honest on my tax returns and received rebates.

I'm willing to give it up but I'm not an idiot. the last time I checked a large number of politicians were still getting pensions while receiving salaries and expenses. I'm still on the moral high ground.

And that's why leadership on this issue has to come from the top... I fully understand your reluctance to hand back state benefits when you see a privileged political elite with their snouts still in the trough, some 12 months into a recession, still claiming unvouched expenses, still underperforming, still being vastly overpaid.

harsea8

Darragh29 wrote: »

I take your point on the not dropping it in its entirety overnight. But we should start somewhere. People earning over 100K don't need child support, and if they consider that they do, then I reckon they are living beyond their means. So it should be cut for those people. The government could start by writing to all people who Revenue records show are earning over 100K and asking them to clarify their income within 28 days. If they cannot prove that they are earning below the 100K threshold within the 28 day period, then CB should be withdrawn... That would be a start...

As I alluded to in my earlier post, why €100K? Why not €90K?
I think everyone agrees that the current system is sh*te (what with multi-millionaires being eligible) but we can't go changing to a system where we pick an arbitrary amount and say everyone earning above this gets sweet FA "cos they can afford it" and anyone below it gets the full amount cos they can't afford it (if we do, people earning €90-95K will be laughing!). Also, as I said before, you cannot ignore the fact that more children = more costs, so, if you are going to means test, it has to be based on number of children as well as salary

Darragh29

harsea8 wrote: »

As I alluded to in my earlier post, why €100K? Why not €90K?
I think everyone agrees that the current system is sh*te (what with multi-millionaires being eligible) but we can't go changing to a system where we pick an arbitrary amount and say everyone earning above this gets sweet FA "cos they can afford it" and anyone below it gets the full amount cos they can't afford it (if we do, people earning €90-95K will be laughing!). Also, as I said before, you cannot ignore the fact that more children = more costs, so, if you are going to means test, it has to be based on number of children as well as salary

Why 100K??? Because what's needed here is a decision. A quick decision... I work for myself and I have to make decisions on the financial end of my business every day of the week. I have to decide what I need to do, and THEN I I HAVE TO IMPLEMENT MY DECISION! I can't fob off my responsibilities to committees, "Bord Snip Nua's", and then dilly dally when the facts are staring me in the face!

Someone needs to make a decision with regard to a new income threshold for CB eligibility and execute that decision immediately. Unfortunately here, we don't have a decision and we don't have the execution of a decision, what we have is endless dithering that is costing us HALF A BILLION EURO a month!

Ddad

Darragh29 wrote: »

And that's why leadership on this issue has to come from the top... I fully understand your reluctance to hand back state benefits when you see a privileged political elite with their snouts still in the trough, some 12 months into a recession, still claiming unvouched expenses, still underperforming, still being vastly overpaid.

In a nutshell.

Like I said, my only state benefit. As an aside I've had to pay over €5000 for medical treatment for my children in the last year. Going down the public route in this country would have really added to the suffering of the children. I am very lucky that I could afford it. I am very mad that someone who cannot afford it has to watch their childs sufferign prorlonged.

thats why I'd give up more money willingly....if i had any faith in the goms running the country.

harsea8

Hey, you're preaching to the converted here, if there is one thing that is bugging me more than anything about the "recession" is the constant talk of what might happen...I wish the government would just get on with it and f*cking do something and the we could all deal with it/strike/or whatever and then start trying to find a way back up.

Back on topic, I was not advocating that it is unfair to penalise someone earning over €100K a year, I was actually suggesting that we shouldn't necessarily continue to be generous to those on €90K a year, but I accept your point about having to starting somewhere...I guess they could start at 100k and could reduce the threshold by €10K every few months to allow the rest of us to sort our finances out before the money disappears.

ceret

jprender wrote: »

Why is the figure of 100k being mentioned as a threshold ?

Why not 40K ?

Oh no particular reason. I just picked €100k as a round figure that's quite clearly living comfortably.

It's not hard to figure out some sort of formula for income and number of children. These are specifics. And yes, you'll always have 2 people at either side of a cut off. However having a cut off is fairer than not having an cut off.

ceret

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well if you don't consider that you need it, why do you continue to go down to the Post Office every week and claim it???

You could easily hand them back the book and ask them to close the account and take you off the system because you don't actually need state subvention to rear your children??

My Granny is GP and still working. She isn't exactly poor. She was opposed to automatic nonmeans tested medical cards for the over 70s. She was entitled to one and didn't take it.

jprender

I think 40k is living comfortably.

halkar

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???...

With the same logic why someone on 100k should subsidise for other people's kids and many other things that they will never use such as as the nice prison example earlier? Lists goes on and on around the same circle.
People were too busy changing cars every second year, going two, three, four holidays a year, buying like crazy for the last decade. And now we started hating public service, hating high earners with the attitude of sack them all, tax them all. Where will it end? Like every country, Ireland is also getting their fair share of downturn. Imao all taxing and sacking doing is taking the money off the circulation and killing the small businesses with more job cuts that never makes to 6 o'clock news.
We need to keep the high earners not to scare them out of here by penalyzing them.

amacachi

My problem with interfering with it (I don't think it should've gotten to where it is now, but that's irrelevant at this point) is that if they means test it then where the hell do they set the thresholds? 100k+? How much is that going to save? Particularly with the cost of a means test. 40k+? It just narrows the gap even more between how well off someone is for working or for not working. Family with 3/4 kids taking in 40k get cut the children's allowance. Suddenly theyre 4k or so a year worse off straightaway. If those kids are at college age they also would get a higher grant if the parents aren't working, and the parents' dole will be increased for as long as the kids are in education. In a family with younger kids there's childcare costs etc. involved in working.

Blergh, such a mess.

is_that_so

I am amused at how regularly this question shows up and how much of the usual rant comes with it.
All of you will be part of that 1 in 4 come 2050 assuming you're still around. By 2050 one in four Irish people will be pensioners or older, so slagging off the unborn who will have to pay for your retirement and health problems seems a bit disingenuous.

There seem to be three ways to deal with CB at present.

1. Standardisation

As suggested by An Bord Snip. The cost involved has been detailed and in theory will not cost the exchequer any more money.

2. Means Testing

There is an implied cost here in that you'd need a lot of staff processing to figure out who was entitled to it.

3. Taxation

A simpler option than Means Testing but still needs some figuring out and the Commission on Taxation may have some ideas on it.

Personally favour 1 & 3 together although there are problems with all options.

As for the ranters well there are many things we pay for that we have no responsibility for.

The cost of smokers and their health problems to the health system.
The cost of regular alcohol abuse to the health system as well as the wider effect on society of behaviour associated with it.
"Patients" who won't go to GPs and go straight to A&E instead.
Social welfare abuse(Over €500 million last year alone).

And of course the "really bad ones"

Unmarried mothers
Deserted Wives
The Unemployed
Old People's pensions
Old people and their illnesses
Sick people(Social Welfare sick days)


Children in due course become adults who will pay taxes, maintain the economy and support us all when we become infirm. Seeing that they are the economy of the future I see absolutely nothing wrong with the government providing some encouragement. Kids come at a price and as the French have recognised for some time, maintaining the rate of replacement is essential. I don't begrudge a bit of support or incentivisation but it needs to be controlled.

is_that_so

jprender wrote: »

I think 40k is living comfortably.

Using blank numbers doesn't tell you anything unless you are an accountant. It tells you nothing about circumstances. €40K to support one person is probably comfortable to a degree but not to support a family.

In this respect means testing can make more sense than a blanket tax on a set amount of money. It's also why a lot of those in that €60K-€100K bracket with commitments have felt the pain more than others. €60K may be seen as a lot of money but the commitments on it may be higher as well.

jprender

This is my point.

People are suggesting a figure of 100K because "they have to be living comfortably on that figure". It is easy to suggest a figure as a cut off point when you are earning less than this.

If asked what salary should be the means test mark, most people will suggest a salary higher than the one they are on.


Regardless, I think it should be taxed at the individuals rate, rather than means tested. Not just taken away from people who earn above a certain amount because they should be in a comfortable bracket according to some peeps.

Ashlinggnilsia

bladespin wrote: »

I think you should read the constitution, that's part of what our country is about.

I fully agree with means testing child benefit though (or some form of means testing) as I agree, it's silly to think a couple on €100k plus can have a substantial second income from their children alone.

Only problem with means testing is they simply take into account income thats it.... not outgoings and yes obviously some things arent needed i dont mean to like include their weekly shopping but things like Mortgage etc that they have no choice and have to pay that they may have purchased before they even decided to have children.

obviouly i agree a person that can afford a 100k hummer wouldnt need it but saying a couple over 100k can afford is very untrue!! My parents had three children...none of us anylonger receiving child benefit obviously wer all over 18 but technically my parents would be in that bracket over the 100k not by much though... they are broke...None of us could get a grant for college because my parents are *making too much money* none of us could go on the dole because *my parents are making too much money* and like the majority of the country they obviously didnt see this comming they have debts like most people in ireland the pay the loans for the cars they have 1 each my mothers is 12 years old and my fathers is 5 years old....they wont be buying cars for the forseeable future... they have only bought one house no holiday homes and its a fairly standard house not out on its own in the country on acres of land is a semidetached 3 bed house. In september there is 3 of us in college my brother has to get a loan to pay for his fees, and i will be living with grandparents because my parents cant afford to pay for accomodation. As a students we cannot claim the dole, or anything for that matter so my parents must pay out for us...

Before i went to college i was workin away payin for myself...got a car...didnt see the recession coming had money saved to cover my loan up till june ... didnt realise it would be so hard to get a job like everyone else.. Have been trying since january. So now i have a car which i have to pay 600 euro in insurance tomorrow ...going on the credit card... and my loan is 30 but guess what ive only got 29.97 in the bank so i will then have to pay the extra 13 euro to the bank for a failed standing order transaction. So i will have to ask my mam and dad for at least 30 euro for the forseeable future as i dont have a job to pay my loan, no way to pay back my credit card and then next month i will have to top that up by another 300 for tax. September comes fees for college for myself and my other brother and money to live off each week while payin all of their own stuff... and their salaries are cut! I know we dont get child benefit anymore but i think you cannot necessarily say a family on an income of 100k should not be allowed get it. Its not 100k disposable income and its not like you get it in one lump sum either!!

bwm43

Of course its should be means tested, the income of 100k is not reflective of the current climate and wouldn't catch enough people. It should be in my opinion 64 k(twice the last recorded average industrial wage) and reduced in increments to no allowance at 85k.

Medical cards fro oaps should be treated similarly.

A salary of 85K in the current climate is too high to be supplementing by the state. Other factors should be considered as well as income though including land, assests both fixed and current for example tractors, farmmachinery, range rovers etc. Lets get some of our cash back!

irish_bob

bwm43 wrote: »

Of course its should be means tested, the income of 100k is not reflective of the current climate and wouldn't catch enough people. It should be in my opinion 64 k(twice the last recorded average industrial wage) and reduced in increments to no allowance at 85k.

Medical cards fro oaps should be treated similarly.

A salary of 85K in the current climate is too high to be supplementing by the state. Other factors should be considered as well as income though including land, assests both fixed and current for example tractors, farmmachinery, range rovers etc. Lets get some of our cash back!

rich oap,s holding medical cards is a disgrace when we have young couples in thier thirties struggling to pay mortgages , what kind of a country allows a retired garda inspector with a 700 euro a week pension visit his doctor for free when his neighbours who are indebted up to thier eyes have to fork out 50 quid when they bring thier three kids to the doc

last years circus over the medical cards for oap,s was as much to do with the kids of theese seniors worrying whether thier inherritence would be spent on pills and doctor bills than any over riding concern for the elderly , the elderly in this country are the least indebted demographic and among the wealthiest demographic aswell

darkman2

It should not only be means tested for the rich - but for the poor aswell. The number of tramps out there making a career out of having children is something people who work hard should not have to pay for. If you genuinely can't cope and need it fair enough - but something must be done about the serial birth giving, unemployed, slags that think the world owes them a living and are quite happy to be seen walking around with the next generation of jobless spongers in their prams. Sure are'nt they getting well paid for it? They don't have to worry, like the rest of us, whether they can afford their next child - they are getting a wage for it.


Limit it it to two children per couple max for a start!

MoominPapa

Scrap it. Tax relief on child care ftw

Carawaystick

said it elsewhere, cut it by some amount, add that amount to the children's part of the social welfare; and tax it. add some correcting factor for low income families to avoid a poverty trap.


But as was pointed out, leadership has to come from the top. unvouched expenses, pensions and TD salaries, salaries that are higher than most other larger countries, multi thousand office refurbishment for a former office holder, 7 grand of airport pick ups in 2 days, or loosing money for people deemed not wanted by the electorate in local elections ( do they not pay prsi? go and queue to apply for your 204.30 per week like the rest of us.), getting a defined benefit pension after 30 years and winging about paying a fraction of the cost of it.
Until that happens, there'll be no acceptance of harsh cuts.

Bduffman

I agree that something has to be done but not means testing.

E.G.
Two people on identical salaries. One looked after their money & saved a nest egg with their family in mind.
The other pissed it away over the years, lived from paypacket to paypacket & has nothing saved.
If savings are taken in to account the second person could get more if means tested.
I think some form of taxation & reductions are the way to go.

Fratton Fred

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???

Why should I, as an employed married father, subsidise someone who decides to have four children with four different fathers, none of whom have ever bothered to hang around and pat maintenance, or even get a job for that matter.

Means testing for ireland's already very generous CBA will do exactly the same as the generous job seekers allowance does, it will encourage more people to quit work and have loads of kids.

Fighting Irish

ceret wrote: »

Perhaps I'm a bit on my own here, but in the wake of talk of cuts, I think child benefit (and most other b enefits) *should* be means tested. I, for one, think it's unfair that a family of €100k+ should get child benefit. They don't need it.

It probably should be means tested because of the mess the country is in, but saying its unfair that a family that have worked hard and sensibly all their lives should be penalised when the 25 yo down the street is getting child benefit for 4 kids she has had with 4 different fathers is fairly stupid


Sorry about the rant, but i'm sick of this world helping the stupid and lazy and penalising the people who put in the effort

I wouldn't mind but child benefit is fu(king stupid, if someone is broke and has a kid and is getting CB it makes it easier on her, if she gets no CB then she'll think twice about getting preggers again

Riskymove

Fighting Irish wrote: »

if she gets no CB then she'll think twice about getting preggers again

i doubt it, i think its very simplistic to suggest someone would have a kid just to get €166 a month

Fighting Irish

Riskymove wrote: »

i doubt it, i think its very simplistic to suggest someone would have a kid just to get €166 a month

i'm not saying she's doing it to get the 166 a month, i'm saying that 166 a month takes some pressure off the person. if they didn't get that 166 it might impact them more and show them that they cannot afford to have a kid

cathysworld

I agree a lot of people dont need child allowance-- and dont get me started on Unmarried Mothers Allowance!!

Riskymove

Fighting Irish wrote: »

i'm not saying she's doing it to get the 166 a month, i'm saying that 166 a month takes some pressure off the person. if they didn't get that 166 it might impact them more and show them that they cannot afford to have a kid

but surely that would apply to the "sensible" family as well as some one with "four different partners"

Riskymove

cathysworld wrote: »

dont get me started on Unmarried Mothers Allowance!!

no longer exists